Radon photos

[Wren]

Wren I saw the panels in question friday. They are interior panels. I've blown my load for the evening. I'm convinced I had a complete dilusion last friday. I wasn't at Radon. I wasn't looking at all the parts in question. I was on magic mushrooms. Sorry vocalizing my halucination.

If they are outside the chassis, they aren't interior panels. They are bodywork.

[John LaRue]

Jim,

Again, read the GCR. I am not trying to convince you of anything. You are trying to flame an argument. What is or is not allowed in DSR is not relevant to this discussion as FF/FC cars have their own specific rules. If you want them changed then put together a proposal to do so.

John

[jimh3063]

Wren you are right. So when you actually saw what you are so convinced is on the outside and claimed by you to be bodywork, where does is actually touch the external lines of the car? I am more than amused by the few people who have made a lot of comments about something they have not even seen. how can any of you make the statements you are making without having seen ANY of what you are commenting on?

[jimh3063]

John, I understand I am no longer running in DSR. What I am stating is that you were making statements about the panels not being safe and would shatter. I merely disagreed with you and explained that the Stohr had the same type of panels and that John Hill had a huge crash and the panels did not shatter. I then sent you a picture of the cockpit of the Stohr. My statement was a reply to you stating they would shatter. We had a 30 minute conversation in which you jumped from reason to reason on why it should not be legal until you finally went with what you stated in your last post. It really comes down to the possible obsolescence of some of the FC's out there. you stated that it should be up to the club membership to decide. I could not agree more.

Was I not on the same call as you?

[Darrin Teeter]

The problem is going to be when someone who has experience and knows what they are doing builds a car to the new rules that will be required to allow the Radon.

Nor does repeating your assumption that Radon/Nathan has no experience and does not know what they are doing make it so. The personal slams you consistently make detract from what I believe you intend to state.

[Wren]

Nor does repeating your assumption that Radon/Nathan has no experience and does not know what they are doing make it so. The personal slams you consistently make detract from what I believe you intend to state.

Everyone I talk to is more concerned about son of Radon than Radon itself.

I understand that your company "Fiber Dynamics" actually made the panels for the Radon and it may have been in exchange for a car, or credit on a car. Is that correct?

[Wren]

Wren you are right. So when you actually saw what you are so convinced is on the outside and claimed by you to be bodywork, where does is actually touch the external lines of the car? I am more than amused by the few people who have made a lot of comments about something they have not even seen. how can any of you make the statements you are making without having seen ANY of what you are commenting on?

Ummm, there are pictures in the first post of this thread?

A panel extending outside the chassis could easily be considered bodywork given the latest COA ruling.

[Darrin Teeter]

Everyone I talk to is more concerned about son of Radon than Radon itself."

[quote=Wren;272937]

Understood. Everyone I talk to is more concerned about improved safety & innovation in the class. Better mousetraps will continue to be made. It was good to see RFR breaking away from tradition (although that seems to be viewed differently). I understand & respect why some may be opposed, but this is a Formula class and the legality of the car is up to the SCCA. I hope for the sake of the class that it does not continue to stagnate.

I understand that your company "Fiber Dynamics" actually made the panels for the Radon and it may have been in exchange for a car, or credit on a car. Is that correct?

You are correct that my company has made many parts for Radon. The rest is speculation and is really no one's business. Do I have a vested interest? Yes, what is your point? Aside from my letter to the CRB (in which I fully disclosed my position), I've steered clear of any conflicts of interest. I love motorsports and I am glad to have the opportunity to be a part of this project. I wish other constructors the best and hope that we have spurred some long-overdue innovation in the class. The prospect of racing a more modern, affordable chassis is what lured me to this class and I trust fresh designs will bring others as well.

[provamo]

who cares about the cf panels....it seems the red herring is the floor/sidepod configuration and subsequent aero advantage

like i said

[nulrich]

If you allow a "floorpan" that is not parallel to the ground, and is not the lowest point of the chassis, with vertical sides on the edges, you are creating ground effects tunnels. Nathan may have not used this to it's fullest advantage, but someone will if deemed legal.

The GCR requires a flat undertray from the rear of the front tire to the front of the rear tire (for FC). That has to be the lowest part of the car and cannot have raised sections that would make a tunnel. There is even a specific prohibition against venturi tunnels with an accompanying illustration.

The Rn.10 has a full length floor pan that is welded to the lower main frame rails and fulfills the main purpose of the floor pan, which is to protect the driver. That floor pan is not horizontal, nor is it coincident with the undertray, but neither is required by the rules.

The GCR also prohibits openings in the bodywork that are not used for engine cooling or intake. I'm confident the Court of Appeals would find any aerodynamic tunnel above the undertray to violate this prohibition.

The Radon Rn.10 does not have tunnels. No air flows through the bodywork except through the sidepods and radiators. In my opinion it is impossible to build a car with tunnels that complies with the current rules, irrespective of the floorpan configuration, but I'm not very experienced nor do I know what I'm doing.

Forgive the skepticism here, as this thread had virtually died before you cam back making hefty claims about a car that by most accounts, isn't even a roller yet, and not even close to it. Your previous posts have come off as some sort of shill, which to many people looked suspicious, at best.

I have met Jim twice, once at the Lime Rock pro race this year and the second time last Friday, when he stopped by the shop with Glen Phillips. He has no affiliation with Radon Sport; in fact he owns and races a Van Diemen FC car. I did not ask him to post on this thread, and in fact I would have discouraged him had he asked me. I do appreciate his praise!

I don't know about "most accounts" but since I'm now sitting about 20 feet from the shop I would tend to trust my own eyes more than your sources...but maybe I'm on the same hallucinogens that Jim mentioned.

Nathan

[jimh3063]

Nathan, sorry if i restarted a **** storm. I was impressed with what I saw and thought most people would be as well. I would say that coming from a class where it was very much a community and people truly appreciated clever designs, FC seems to be very different.

I thought that it was VERY odd that people had so much input and opinion on things they had never seen. I think that car will be a lot safer than what is currently out there. I'm not a car designer and can't really state definitely that it will be faster. But I do own an FC and am entitled to my opinion based on WHAT I ACTUALLY SAW. I would also add that there are a lot of clever people building cars and I can't imagine that you will be the only person striving to build a better mousetrap. I will add you probably will be the catalyst for the others to step it up though.

I repeat, I have met Nathan twice and have no affiliation with him or his company. Just appreciate truly clever cars. That I am guilty of.

[Steve Demeter]

Jim,
Just trying to liven up the discussion a bit.

Nothing personal.

Steve, are you sure your not a proctologist. Your acting like an *******

[jimh3063]

Steve I don't know from Adam. I'm sure your a good guy. I'm sorry if you took the "go **** yourself" personally. I guess I'm not a proctologist and you can un **** yourself.
I think most racers are short wicked and a little off. Why else would you attempt to kill yourself for a little $5 piece of wood few times a year.

I'm sure this will all come out in the wash or should I say track. I just thought what I saw was pretty cool legal or not. I'm not the person who will make that decision but the car is very cool just the same.

[Jtovo]

Does not have to be on track to exist.

Is that like USF1?

[Rennie Clayton]

If they are outside the chassis, they aren't interior panels. They are bodywork.

Wren,

You keep asserting this, but I have yet to spot where it is actually stated in the GCR. Could you kindly point that section out, or discontinue making false assertions?


Cheers,
Rennie

[Mark Filip]

Is that like USF1?

Webster's 1913 Dictionary
Ex`ist´
v. i. 1. To be as a fact and not as a mode; to have an actual or real being, whether material or spiritual.
[imp. & p. p. Existed; p. pr. & vb. n. Existing.]
Who now, alas! no more is missed
Than if he never did exist.
- Swift.
To conceive the world . . . to have existed from eternity.
- South.
2. To be manifest in any manner; to continue to be; as, great evils existed in his reign.
3. To live; to have life or the functions of vitality; as, men can not exist in water, nor fishes on land.

USF1 did exist ask the many people who purchased there non existing parts and equipment at auction.

[Wren]

Wren,

You keep asserting this, but I have yet to spot where it is actually stated in the GCR. Could you kindly point that section out, or discontinue making false assertions?


Cheers,
Rennie

I don't keep asserting it, I think I might have mentioned it twice on Sunday while throwing out there what those panels might be.

I based that on a COA ruling that anything extending past the chassis was bodywork. That COA ruling was specifically mentioning floor but it is hardly a stretch to apply that to more than the floor.

The ruling was also an FA ruling, but it was referencing the tech glossary, so I doubt that the words in the tech glossary mean different things to different classes.

USF1 did exist ask the many people who purchased there non existing parts and equipment at auction.

The people who lost their money to them might feel differently, along with the people who were never paid for their equipment. Did they every actually make any parts?

[Stan Clayton]

The people who lost their money to them might feel differently, along with the people who were never paid for their equipment. Did they every actually make any parts?

You mean aside from the 70-thousand toasters?

[jimh3063]

Wren, you crack me up. Do you make up stuff when it suits you. Bend them twist them, interpret then to suit your needs. Love it.

"That COA ruling was specifically mentioning floor but it is hardly a stretch to apply that to more than the floor."


Too funny.

Rennie, thanks for speaking up.

[Hardingfv32]

From a engineering point of view, why would the floor pan not be in the same location as the under-tray? Is this an attempt to make better use of the lower frame rails as lower control arm mounting points? A simpler and thus lighter frame?

Brian

[dc]

Ok, this has gone on far too long. Let's let the SCCA CRB and Bod figure out if this car is legal or not, and where the class is heading. The bickering is going nowhere.